301
Finally, the judgment delivered on 14 June 2016 by the ECJ in the Parliament v.
Council case (C-263/14) lays out the most recent judicial position regarding the
interpretation of UNCLOS provisions. It explicitly affects the field of maritime
piracy.
111
This judgment referred, first, to an action for annulment of Council
Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signature and conclusion of the
Agreement signed between the EU and Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of
suspected pirates and associated seized property from the EU-led naval force to
Tanzania
112
and, second, to the maintenance of the effects of that Decision until its
replacement.
This judgment was the second time the ECJ had the chance to refer to UNCLOS
provisions regarding maritime piracy. Two years earlier, the Court had had to rule
on a similar case, regarding the bilateral agreement signed by the EU with Mauritius
in the fight against maritime piracy.
113
The ECJ mentioned Articles 100–107
UNCLOS, which, as is well known, set out the legal framework for combating
piracy.
Specifically, the Parliament claimed that the ECJ should annul the contested
decision, order that the effects of the decision be maintained until its replacement,
and order the Council to pay the costs. In support of its action, the Parliament put
forward two pleas in law. By its first plea in law, it claimed that the contested decision was wrongly based on Art. 37 TEU alone and that, therefore, the decision ought
not to have been adopted in accordance with the specific procedure for agreements
related exclusively to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, provided for in the
first clause of the second subparagraph of Art. 218(6) TFEU, which excluded any
participation of the Parliament. The Parliament argued that, under Articles 37, 82
and 87 TFEU, the appropriate legal basis for the adoption of such a decision could
only be in accordance with the procedure laid down in point (a)(v) of the second
subparagraph of Art. 218(6) TFEU, which required the consent of the Parliament.
By its second plea in law, concerning the infringement of Art. 218(10) TFEU, the
Parliament claimed that the Council failed to keep it immediately and fully informed
at all stages in the negotiation and conclusion of the Agreement between the EU and
Tanzania on maritime piracy.
It falls beyond the scope of this chapter to provide an in-depth analysis of the
appropriate legal basis for the adoption of such a decision. Consequently, the following lines will focus solely on references to UNCLOS provisions regarding maritime piracy. To render its judgment, the ECJ noted that Art. 100 of UNCLOS
contains the obligation for all states to cooperate on the repression of acts of maritime piracy. In supporting its judicial position, the ECJ referred to the Security
Council Resolution 1846 (2008), which asked all states to cooperate in determining
jurisdiction and in taking action to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of acts
of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia.
111 Parliament v. Council, C-263/14. For a detailed analysis of this case, see Van der Mei (2016).
112 Official Journal 2014, L 108/1.
113 Parliament v. Council, C-658/11.
The European Court of Justice and the Interpretation of the United Nations Convention…
Finally, the judgment delivered on 14 June 2016 by the ECJ in the Parliament v.
Council case (C-263/14) lays out the most recent judicial position regarding the
interpretation of UNCLOS provisions. It explicitly affects the field of maritime
piracy.
111
This judgment referred, first, to an action for annulment of Council
Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signature and conclusion of the
Agreement signed between the EU and Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of
suspected pirates and associated seized property from the EU-led naval force to
Tanzania
112
and, second, to the maintenance of the effects of that Decision until its
replacement.
This judgment was the second time the ECJ had the chance to refer to UNCLOS
provisions regarding maritime piracy. Two years earlier, the Court had had to rule
on a similar case, regarding the bilateral agreement signed by the EU with Mauritius
in the fight against maritime piracy.
113
The ECJ mentioned Articles 100–107
UNCLOS, which, as is well known, set out the legal framework for combating
piracy.
Specifically, the Parliament claimed that the ECJ should annul the contested
decision, order that the effects of the decision be maintained until its replacement,
and order the Council to pay the costs. In support of its action, the Parliament put
forward two pleas in law. By its first plea in law, it claimed that the contested decision was wrongly based on Art. 37 TEU alone and that, therefore, the decision ought
not to have been adopted in accordance with the specific procedure for agreements
related exclusively to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, provided for in the
first clause of the second subparagraph of Art. 218(6) TFEU, which excluded any
participation of the Parliament. The Parliament argued that, under Articles 37, 82
and 87 TFEU, the appropriate legal basis for the adoption of such a decision could
only be in accordance with the procedure laid down in point (a)(v) of the second
subparagraph of Art. 218(6) TFEU, which required the consent of the Parliament.
By its second plea in law, concerning the infringement of Art. 218(10) TFEU, the
Parliament claimed that the Council failed to keep it immediately and fully informed
at all stages in the negotiation and conclusion of the Agreement between the EU and
Tanzania on maritime piracy.
It falls beyond the scope of this chapter to provide an in-depth analysis of the
appropriate legal basis for the adoption of such a decision. Consequently, the following lines will focus solely on references to UNCLOS provisions regarding maritime piracy. To render its judgment, the ECJ noted that Art. 100 of UNCLOS
contains the obligation for all states to cooperate on the repression of acts of maritime piracy. In supporting its judicial position, the ECJ referred to the Security
Council Resolution 1846 (2008), which asked all states to cooperate in determining
jurisdiction and in taking action to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of acts
of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia.
111 Parliament v. Council, C-263/14. For a detailed analysis of this case, see Van der Mei (2016).
112 Official Journal 2014, L 108/1.
113 Parliament v. Council, C-658/11.
The European Court of Justice and the Interpretation of the United Nations Convention…